 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You demonstrate perfectly the kind of mentality. Limiting freedom of
> speech is completely "acceptable" when the subject in question is taboo
> enough.
You *really* believe you have complete freedom of speech? What gives you
the right to expect that? The general public expect that if you lie to an
official, or tell others to commit crimes, or speak in a way that damages
anyone else mentally, you should be suitably punished. I'd hate to live
somewhere where those sorts of acts went unpunished.
> People are already being fined in many western countries for expressing
> their opinion *without* causing any trouble.
Care to give any examples?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>
>>>> So now many clients support encryption. Run it through port 443 and
>>>> they
>>>> can't tell it apart from online banking :)
>>>
>>> ...except for the massive quantity of data. :-P
>>>
>>> Traffic analysis, anyone?
>>
>> Hmm, massive amounts of data encrypted and obscured are bound to raise
>> a few eyebrows.
>
> Indeed. A typical HTTPS session transaction is, what, 200 KB?
> Transferring multiple GB of data in both directions might look
> *slightly* suspicious...
>
> Thinking about it, all an ISP *really* needs to do is block any network
> transaction involving "large" amounts of data. That'll block any
> concievably file-sharing technology, not just BitTorrent.
Or they can just start charging you by the MB once you've exceeded a
certain monthly cap. Some ISPs in the U.S. are doing just that.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Thinking about it, all an ISP *really* needs to do is block any
>> network transaction involving "large" amounts of data. That'll block
>> any concievably file-sharing technology, not just BitTorrent.
>
> Or they can just start charging you by the MB once you've exceeded a
> certain monthly cap. Some ISPs in the U.S. are doing just that.
Yeah, I've heard of such things.
Of course, no ISP can truly offer an "unlimited" Internet access
package. The difference is that some of them will *tell* you what the
limit is, and others will make it up as they go along...
(If the limit is in the T&C, then that's the limit they have to follow.
If the T&C are more vague, they can cap you to whatever suits their
pockets...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Hehe you could say the same with guns. Actually no, a much higher
>> proportion of people use guns for legal activity :-)
>
> Hmm not really... Guns were *made for* killing.
And you really think it's a coincidence that bitTorrent was released at
almost exactly the same time Napster was closed down?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> (If the limit is in the T&C, then that's the limit they have to follow. If
> the T&C are more vague, they can cap you to whatever suits their
> pockets...)
For my mobile broadband, the usage is capped at 5GB per month, but after
that the speed is simply limited to 64kb/s. Seems pretty sensible to me as
there are no hidden charges and no sudden loss of connection.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> And you really think it's a coincidence that bitTorrent was released at
> almost exactly the same time Napster was closed down?
I was under the impression the original Bit Torrent paper was somebody's
final year project or something?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> (If the limit is in the T&C, then that's the limit they have to
>> follow. If the T&C are more vague, they can cap you to whatever suits
>> their pockets...)
>
> For my mobile broadband, the usage is capped at 5GB per month, but after
> that the speed is simply limited to 64kb/s. Seems pretty sensible to me
> as there are no hidden charges and no sudden loss of connection.
If all the ISPs say in the T&C what they're actually going to do, you
can shop around and find the one that's acceptable to you. I don't see
anything wrong with that.
I think that having a "hidden" cap that they don't warn you about to be
a rather unfair concept.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scott com> wrote:
> > You demonstrate perfectly the kind of mentality. Limiting freedom of
> > speech is completely "acceptable" when the subject in question is taboo
> > enough.
> You *really* believe you have complete freedom of speech? What gives you
> the right to expect that? The general public expect that if you lie to an
> official, or tell others to commit crimes, or speak in a way that damages
> anyone else mentally, you should be suitably punished. I'd hate to live
> somewhere where those sorts of acts went unpunished.
You don't get the point. The point is that freedom of speech is more
limited now than it was eg. 20 years ago. And it's getting more and more
limited as time passes.
And we are not talking about lying and deceiving. We are talking about
*expressing your opinion*, which is a rather different thing. Today
expressing certain types of opinions is so taboo that even law enforcement
is trying to stop these thought crimes.
> > People are already being fined in many western countries for expressing
> > their opinion *without* causing any trouble.
> Care to give any examples?
A Finnish person posted an article in his blog citing, among other things,
official crime statistics performed by certain groups of people and using
words which some people consider derogatory (although whether they really
are or not is completely subjective and there's no official stance). He
was sued and fined, and forced to take the article off his blog.
(Having read the trial logs, the trial was more or less a farce. The
judge was astonishingly biased and basically ignored everything the defence
attorney and the suspect told.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> And you really think it's a coincidence that bitTorrent was released at
> almost exactly the same time Napster was closed down?
Napster closed down: July 2001.
BitTorrent paper released: April 2001.
First BT implementation released: 2 July 2001.
So you're seriously suggesting that somebody did all that R&D just to
illegally copy stuff?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Hey, you can even cause massive disruption by protesting against your
> government, yet they do nothing, no fine, no arrests, no attempt to even
> stop the disruption. *That's* ludicrous IMO.
Not in the US. If your protests indeed disrupt the government, or
traffic, or so many other things, you get in trouble.
--
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
